conceded to other nations, and what is to be pre

served.

England in fact gains no revenue from her possessions in India. What she gains is by trade, but she has become the envy of other nations, on account of her possessions there; and she must prepare herself for some arrangements that will give safety to herself, and satisfaction to other

nations.

The history of the world shews that nothing is permanent that is not consonant to the views of mankind, and that moderation is the only thing that enables any one nation to preserve, for a long period, a possession that excites envy amongst others*.

It is strange enough, that though Spain preserved a very strict and close monopoly of the trade to South America, it excited no envy; but England, though extremely liberal to foreigners trading to her possessions in the east, excited very great envy. There could be no good reason for this; but, as it was so, there must have been some cause; and it possibly enough might be this-The Spaniards managed so badly, that they were rather injured by their foreign possessions; whereas the great prosperity, and splendid establishments of England excited envy. It was the result of the business, and not its right, that occasioned the feeling of envy towards one country, and not towards the other; and envy is generally amongst

The commerce with India has, from the earliest ages, been a bone of contention for the civilized nations. For that, Solomon built the superb city of Palmyra, (Tadmor in the wilderness), whose ruins astonish the traveller to this day: for that, Alexander destroyed Tyre, the queen of the commercial nations of antiquity: for that, he invaded India, and founded Alexandria. For the same commerce did Venice, Genoa, and Constantinople, contend during the dark ages*: and for the same, have the Dutch, Portuguese, English, and French, contended in modern times. Are we to expect that in this new era, mankind are to abandon their propensities, and change their mode of action? Certainly not: and in the new arrangements that are probably soon to take place, nothing will be so difficult as to make a solid and satisfactory arrangement with regard to India.

nations, sooner or later, productive of hostility. A tract is now preparing on this important subject, that may perhaps tend to facilitate an adjustment.

See for particulars, Disquisition on Ancient India, by William Robertson, D.D.

LORD KING.

His lordship, who is a man of very considerable abilities, made himself very remarkable for exerting them in a very strange way. When metallic money could not be procured for the purposes of exchange, and the government was, through necessity, obliged to make bank notes pass, his lordship, not considering the embarrassments of a nation that stood up alone in defence of the liberties of mankind, exerted himself in a way that tended greatly to increase those embarrassments. He insisted on his tenantry paying him their rents in gold, when he knew that it could not be done*, and when he paid his butcher

* The tenantry of one single landholder might certainly have found the means, with great loss, inconveniency, and delay, of paying their rents in gold, but the impossibility here mentioned applies to it as a general practice. All the tenantry in the country could not have done it. There was a physical impossibility, when they were obliged to sell produce for paper, and there was not gold to be found in exchange for that paper.

and baker in the same sort of paper money that he refused to take.

Those who know that Lord King is a man of abilities, and a man of honour; and one who, besides, has a great stake in the country, could easily see that this was only an indirect way of procuring a law to make that legal which was become necessary, and to prevent selfish proprietors of land from actually enforcing payments in money.

His lordship's conduct had the desired effect, and Earl Stanhope, with his usual ability, and known love for his country, brought in a bill that in a great measure remedied the defects of prior regulation.

The government of the country, very prudently, knowing the tenderness of public credit, and the readiness of certain persons to throw an odium on their measures, had avoided making bank notes a legal tender. The consequences of this circuitous mode of proceeding was, that bank notes (the solidity of which is easily demonstrated*) served every

* Every bank note that is sent out has a pledge deposited for its reimbursement, and that pledge is a real value, not indeed deposited in substance, but by obligations of solvent persons, by which their property becomes tangible. See the article Mellish.

purpose, when the buyer and seller knew the payment was to be in paper. But for a past transaction, for the acquittal of an obligation taken when gold was current, they could only serve by permission of the receiver, who alone had the right to wave the literal fulfilment of the obligation. It was on this principle that Lord King paid in paper, and insisted on being paid in gold. He looked like Shylock the Jew. His lordship would have the bond. But he was a British peer, and did not, really, it is believed, mean any such thing; on the contrary, he must have meant to bring about the alteration that actually took place.

Government did not even then, in direct terms make bank notes a legal tender, but it did what in fact was nearly the same thing. A law was made that rendered it a matter of wisdom, if not of necessity, to take the bank notes; a law that prevented landlords from harassing their tenants by demands that could not be complied with.

England has astonished the world by the manner in which its credit has been kept up amidst bankruptcy abroad, and outcry at home. For this we certainly are indebted to the general good sense of the nation, and the cautious policy of ministers, who were contented to grope their way, sticking fast by